Jem Kamran-Collingwood

As I was reading Collingwood theory of art I was reminded of our class discussion on how a method actor's art is not art but a craft, because he takes on the persona of the character he is playing, and as a result evokes emotion in himself that he wants to convey to the audience. Collingwood claims that a method actors aim is "not to produce a pre- conceived emotional effect on his audience but by means of a system of expressions, or language, composed partly of speech and partly of gesture, to explore his own emotions: to discover emotions in himself of which he was unaware, and by permitting the audience to witness the discovery, enable them to make a similar discovery about themselves." While I agree that method actors are experts at doing this. I think same results can be achieved without method acting. An expert actor will know how to manipulate its audience to convey the reaction that he wants. He can manipulate his actions so it seems like he is realizing the events as they are occurring at the same time the audience is realizing it. This is particularly true for plays, or remakes of the movies that are considered classic. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice for example. Everyone knows the characters really well, they have been portrayed by many actors before hand. How can someone portray an element of new to a story that has been told over and over again? And if every aspect of it has been portrayed, the audience has already "pre-cocieved emotional" effect because they know what to expect. How then can that piece of art be portrayed as a enfolding of emotions?